Chandler--sorry, I dropped the percentage figure. If you worked for 30 years, and your last salary was $60,000, and you retired at 60, a State employee would get a salary of 0.02 x 30 x $60,000--or $36,000. A local government employee would get 0.03 x 30 x $60,000--or $54,000. A policeman could retire at 50, with 30 years of service, at the same figure--.03 x 30 x $60,000.

If you look at the history of the State legislation that allowed local governments to raise the retirement rate, and local salary structures, you would find that it is actually police salaries, retirement and overtime that were driving the train. City managers and higher-ups in cities were making about 50% less than the top cops. In San Francisco and Oakland, a lot of cops make over $200,000/year, and an astonishing number make over $300,000. City administrators argued, successfully, that they needed to keep up with the cops. Firemen make almost as much--but have a more dangerous job.

I think that all of these things need to be reformed. With current life expectancy, most people can keep working to 65 or 67 with undiminished vigor. There ought to be a significant economic penalty for early retirement that would generally mean that people would need to work in the private sector and defer their retirement. It was a major mistake, based on the same hubris that led to the 2008 meltdown (and so many before it as well)--good times will go on forever.

But it is important to remember that there are about 10 times as many local governmental employees as State employees, and the latter are neither paid as well, nor retired as well.

Thanks mac for the revision. With the revised figures, the numbers look far more realistic, even though I think that we both agree that the retirement salaries for police, fireman and local employees are way too generous. Factor in retirement ages as early as 50, the situation gets untenable. There's no doubt in my mind that changes will need to be made to address this. We are already seeing signs that newer negotiated agreements, particularly with unions, that they are requiring greater employee contributions to their retirement. Also, padding up things up in the end with unused sick time, vacation and overtime compensation is rightfully getting greater scrutiny. This kind of fluff has got to go.

Regarding the trends being entertained today about folks working longer, I have a real hard time buying into the concept. This is much bigger than just the idea of government employees. I think that we all realize that as folks approach our final years of employment their salaries are usually at the highest levels of their careers. Most business models want to discourage retention of older employees, unless they bring unusual experience to the table. Also, the idea that folks will work their whole career with one company is an idea that has less and less validity today. When you look at the statistics for folks that are laid off at 50 and older, they find it very tough to find new employment with pay commensurate with their experience and age, especially these days where computers, new technologies and specialized education are rapidly changing the marketplace. Businesses would much rather hire folks in their 20s and 30s. If we bring in health issues that can be associated with older folks in their 50s, 60s and 70s, the picture just gets more dismal.

Chandler-agreed on the need for reform. One of the problems of the collapse of the GOP brand as a reasonable force in California is that the Democrats have trouble saying no to the unreasonable requests of the public employee unions. There is little doubt in my mind that California was better governed when there were pro-environment Republicans that were interested in fiscal responsibility instead of pleasing social conservatives, and there were conservative Democrats such as Ralph Dills, who had the vision to build the California highway system. http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/dills-misfortune/content?oid=34829

On the working as we get older question. It is absolutely true that working for a long time in one particular niche of the world--public or private--means that you are very good in that niche, but not so valuable in other arenas. Working in many niches, and experience in management, is what makes an older worker more valuable than a younger worker--if that's what a job requires. But the present worth cost of retirement benefits goes down dramatically if the worker continues to be employed until 65 or older. He is contributing financial benefits that offset the cost of his medical insurance and so forth.

Since the private sector destroyed unions and then walked away from pensions and healthcare, those costs have been transferred to the Federal government. Often the private sector doesn't even pay the level of taxes needed to cover those costs. It is, indeed, another form of subsidy.

Now we have heard the Tea Party is out to cut subsidies--like in the Agriculture bill, eh? The five year bill, at nearly a trillion dollars, included substantial cuts to food stamps--voted on by a number in Congress who had taken millions in crop subsidies. When the dust settles, do you think that subsidies will be taken away from rich farmers--or the poor who get all of $4.50 a day to eat--will bear the brunt of the cuts?

Republicans are irrelevant in California since 2012. There is a super-majority in the state with Democrats controlling everything. There is no question in my mind that when Reagan was governor, this was the best run and most beautiful state in the union.

2. Are the students obedient and ready to learn or are they disrespectful and disruptive?

I have said before that the quality of the family unit or lack there of is the key factor that determines whether the student will flourish, struggle or fail, regardless of the money spent per pupil. The real issue is how do you fix this problem? I have no idea!!! Smaller classes and better higher paid teachers could help a little, but at what cost?

University costs? I fail to see why costs continue to rise to such extreme levels. In 2012 there were 71 colleges and universities with over 1 billion in endowment with the top number of 30.4 billion going to Harvard. These institutions are sitting on huge sums of money with their endowments growing much faster than inflation even in hard times. At the same time, their tuition also continues to grow at rates far exceeding inflation. I used to give money to my university, but I don't anymore. Why would I?

One would like to think that student performance is tied directly to the amount of money spent per student ...but I couldn't find a trend or consensus that supports either side.

University costs? I fail to see why costs continue to rise to such extreme levels.

I compared what FSU cost me in the 60s (for a damned good education in high and very specific demand by my target job at DuPont's ivory tower research center) vs what it costs today. After inflation, and not counting housing or food (we need food and shelter regardless) I saw no difference in direct school-related expenses. A bigger problem is that kids these days think they are owed an Ivy League* education at their neighbors' expense. The ones who think that way are spoiled, greedy, idealistic, socialist, clueless brats facing a real world vastly different from what their liberal upbringing told them.

* Harvard has so damned much money from endowments that they could simply coast for many years without even charging ANY tuition. Their tuition is skyrocketing because they get away with it, partly or maybe largely because of government handouts. Speaking of which, what's with the Congress paying off their interns' student loans with public funds? Incentives like that are intended to incentivize people to take crappy jobs no one wants, not as perks for jobs people stand in line and kill -- or get on their knees and backs -- for

I've seen powerful, definitive evidence, both macro (over the last 50 years nationwide) and micro (billions pumped into Kansas City, IIRC, as a deliberate experiment), showing that beyond the necessities, extra money produces zero additional results.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum